3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:Disappointing adaptation, 4 July 2011

I haven't read enough of Robert Littell's novels to know if he's the
American version of Frederick Forsyth, Graham Greene, or my personal
favorite, John le Carre, but I've liked the novels of his I've read,
and one day, I hope someone makes a good adaptation of one of them. THE
AMATEUR, filmed in 1981, was faithful to the plot of the novel for the
most part, but was done in a plodding, mechanical style and further
hampered by a one-note performance by John Savage in the lead role;
only Christopher Plummer's wry turn as the head of the Czech Secret
Service (he also poses as a professor) was worth watching. This
made-for-TNT miniseries isn't as bad as THE AMATEUR, but it also falls
short of the novel.

Littell's novel was an epic roman a clef about the history of the CIA,
with the usual blending of factual and fictional characters, and while
it traveled well-worn territory (and not quite as substantial in that
regard as le Carre's novels are), it's still an entertaining read.
Obviously, when filming a long novel, even for a miniseries like this,
some things have to go, but it's disappointing when great material is
here, and the adapters (director Mikael Solomon and writer Ken Nolan)
don't bring it to life on screen.

Part of the problem is it seems like a greatest-hits version of the
novel. You get the various incidents, like the Hungary uprising in
1956, and the Bay of Pigs, but there's no flow to the story. Solomon
and Littell also cut out the humor of the novel - the character of
Yevgeny, the Russian agent, for example, has a great fatalism about him
(in the book, when asked what one of the principles of Marxism (I
think) is, he replies, "A spy in hand is worth two in the bush?"), and
Rory Cochrane could have played it as such, yet he does absolutely
nothing with the part (he's certainly capable of it, so I'd like to
think it's not his fault). Also a lot of the subplots are given to the
character of Jack MacAuliffe, and Chris O'Donnell simply isn't equipped
to handle them all. Speaking of O'Donnell, another problem is while the
scope of the story is for 40 years, none of the characters really age,
with the possible exception of Alfred Molina (as Harvey, code-named
"The Sorcerer") and Michael Keaton (as real-life deputy director of
counter-intelligence James Angleton). O'Donnell just looks like
O'Donnell with a gray wig. The only actors who make much of an
impression are Molina and Keaton. Overall, "The Company", while not
terrible, definitely could have been a lot better.

169 out of 190 people found the following review useful:Crowe knows what it is love some little piece of music so much that it hurts, 5 October 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There's a (by now) well-known scene early on in ALMOST FAMOUS when William
Miller is poring through the records his older sister Anita has left behind
for him since she ran off from home. Inside the album cover of The Who's
TOMMY, she leaves William a note, telling him to listen to this with a
candle lit, and he'll be able to see his future. He puts on the record,
"Sparks" comes on, and the look on his face as he listens is the look every
rock fan will recognize.

There's been tons of stuff written about rock-n-roll music, from those who
think, like William's mother Elaine, that it's a corrupting influence(or
those who go even farther and consider it "the devil's music"), to those who
insist the music is meaningless and to take it seriously smacks of
pretension, because it's "only music." And then there are people like
Cameron Crowe, who recognize rock-n-roll, and the music which came in its
wake, is the shared experience of many people starting from the 1950's, in
the way maybe that plays and earlier types of music were in centuries
before. Sure, there's television and movies as well, but rock music is
shorter and more direct. And sure, it can just be fun and a way to cut
loose once in a while, but it's also something which can speak to what we
love, what we long for, what we're afraid of, what we think, what wounds us
inside, and so much more.

Because Crowe is a fan, he's able to capture all of this in his movie. It's
not just in the obvious moments, like the people on the tour bus singing
along to Elton John's "Tiny Dancer," which lifts them out of their black
mood, or singer Jeff Bebe leading everybody into singing "On the Cover of
Rolling Stone" when he learns he and his fellow bandmates will be on the
cover. It's in the wild spirit of people like Sapphire, one of the
Band-Aids(read: groupies) who follow the band Stillwater and others as they
tour the U.S., or in the more tender spirit of someone like her sister
Band-Aid Penny Lane, who believes she and the other Band-Aids serve as a
muse to bands like Stillwater, and who soaks in all of her experiences like
a sponge. It's also in William, who tries(like Crowe did) to balance
reporting with his very obvious love for the music. And it's especially in
the line I quoted from at the top, which Sapphire says to Stillwater
guitarist Russell Hammond late in the movie. To be sure, the road of
rock-n-roll isn't all covered in roses. There's outrageous behavior(like
how Russell treats Penny, or William losing his virginity to three of the
groupies), drugs, excess, and yes, pretension(like when Jeff lectures Penny
about the power of rock-n-roll and then adds, "And the chicks are cool,
right?" But those who wanted this to be more like THIS IS SPINAL TAP are
missing the point. This isn't a movie about the obvious problems and
silliness in rock music. It's about what still draws people to it, and
though Crowe acknowledges these people's faults, he still loves them for who
they are.

Of course, there's a lot more reasons why ALMOST FAMOUS is a great movie
besides its love of rock-n-roll. It's well acted across the board(in
addition to all the performances mentioned several times, I'd like to
highlight Fairuza Balk as Sapphire; not only does she get the best line in
the movie(along with Frances McDormand's "Don't take drugs!" and "Rock stars
have kidnapped my son") with that line about music(I also like what she and
the other groupies yell as they're about to deflower William, "Death to
Opie!"), but she also captures the carefree spirit of the time. She may not
be important plot wise, but if you took her character out, the movie would
be missing something), it's a terrific coming-of-age story, it's a
bittersweet love story, the dialogue is great, and it looks terrific. But
it's Crowe's obvious love for the music, and for the people who love it,
that makes ALMOST FAMOUS the best thing I've seen so far this
year.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:Very good comic book movie, 17 July 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One of the never-ending debates about popular culture is whether it reflects
the times or dictates them. I tend toward the former view, and comic books
are no exceptions to this rule. Batman and Superman, the popular comic book
heroes of the 30's and 40's, came during the Depression and WWII, where
people wanted larger-than-life heroes to look up to. Whereas in the 60's
and 70's, when society was becoming ripped apart and people were feeling
confused and didn't trust society, comic book heroes like Spiderman and The
Fantastic Four, who had as many everyday problems as they did evil ones,
were the popular heroes. Square in that tradition are the
X-Men.

I was only a casual reader of the comics when I grew up; it was more the
excellent animated series of several years back I became a fan of. It was
on late at night, and the times shifted around so I couldn't always watch,
but I enjoyed watching the adventures of Professor X, Storm, Wolverine,
Rogue, and the others, and how they struggled to find their place in the
world and to help other mutants do the same. Now, director Bryan Singer and
a host of writers(in addition to credited writers Singer, Tom DeSanto, and
David Hayter, writers including John Logan, Christopher McQuarrie, Ed
Solomon, and Joss Whedon took a whack at it) have delivered their version of
X-MEN, and I'm pleased to say it delivers.

One of the reasons it works is Singer, his usual director of photography,
Newton Thomas Sigel, and production designer John Myhre eschew the usual
look of comic book films. Even though this is set in the future(the "near
future"), everything looks close to like it is today(except, of course,
Magneto's hideout and Professor Xavier's school). This emphasizes even more
the alienation mutants feel from society. And while there are visual
effects used in both the battles and when the X-Men show their
stuff(especially Mystique), they don't come at the expense of the story, but
serve it.

Some have complained the film is overly serious, as if being a comic book
automatically meant it wasn't worth taking seriously. Yes, Singer is making
parallels to bigotry today, with some direct antecedents(the anti-mutant
Senator Robert Kelly is clearly modeled on Joe McCarthy, Magneto is a
Holocaust survivor, and he quotes Malcolm X near the end - "by any means
necessary" - which also suggests Professor Xavier is parallel to Martin
Luther King), but they're handled well, and not overplayed. It's also
refreshing to see how little melodrama creeps in(SPOILER ALERT: When
Professor Xavier becomes bedridden and the rest of the X-Men must carry on
without him, it's good to see he doesn't suddenly come back just in time to
save the day. END SPOILER ALERT). And to those who suggest the movie is
without humor, there are jokes both visual(I don't know the characters, but
at the school, one boy makes a fireball, and another sneaks up behind him
and turns it into ice. Also, Wolverine's version of flipping someone the
bird) and through dialogue(when Wolverine puts down the costumes everyone's
wearing, Cyclops shoots back, "Would you prefer yellow
spandex?").

One criticism of comic book movies has generally been that they spend too
much time trying to explain things to people who don't know anything about
them, all at the expense of the story. That's certainly a valid point, but
the stories of Wolverine and Rogue(though admittedly hers is supposedly
changed radically from the source) are a good way of getting into the story,
and Magneto's short past is necessary to show while he is a villain, he's
not your standard one. And the stories of Wolverine and Rogue provide an
emotional counterpoint to the information disseminated about the X-Men(the
fact that Patrick Stewart is handling the exposition keeps these scenes from
bogging down).

Which leads to the performances. In order for this to work, you need actors
with tremendous presence and authority to play Professor Xavier and Magneto,
and someone who can fully handle the complexity of Wolverine, and this is
where the film truly scores. Stewart and Ian McKellen are terrific in their
roles, both resisting the urge to camp it up(the fact that they sound alike
also illustrates how the characters are two sides of the same coin), and
especially play well together. And while I had wanted Russell Crowe(the
first name mentioned during casting talks) for Wolverine, newcomer Hugh
Jackman does quite well, capturing all the feelings Wolverine feels, plus
having a great physical presence. And he also does a great job working with
all the other actors, and acting with his face(SPOILER ALERT: especially in
the scene when he rescues Rogue near the end. END SPOILER
ALERT)

The rest of the cast is more of a mixed bag. On the minus side, Tyler Mane
has very little to do as Sabretooth, though Magneto and Mystique are the
main villains here anyway. Halle Berry has a great physical presence as
Storm, her battle scenes come off well, and she's quietly powerful in her
one dramatic scene with Senator Kelly, but her African accent(Storm, of
course, lived there much of her life) is wayward, and she gets stuck with
some awkward dialogue(her scene with Wolverine). And while James Marsden is
appropriately cocky as Cyclops, and spars well with Wolverine, isn't quite
convincing as a leader, in his one dramatic scene(with Professor Xavier),
he's wooden rather than moving, and he and Jean Gray don't have much
chemistry(in fairness, that was probably among the footage cut out after
previews). On the plus side, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos only has one line of
dialogue, but she's quite a presence as Mystique; she's a visual effect all
to herself. And unlike the tiresome face-swapping of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2,
her shape-shifting never becomes tiresome, because it's always used right,
for terror or a joke. Ray Park also makes a good presence as Toad, and
contributes some humor as well. Bruce Davison doesn't overplay as Kelly,
but brings the right amount of edge. Famke Jannsen brings quiet strength to
Jean Gray, and her scenes with Wolverine sparkle(especially when she looks
into his mind). Finally, while some have complained that Rogue is too
passive a character, I would argue it's appropriate for this conception; she
doesn't use her power in fights because she hasn't learned to control it,
and is afraid to use it. And Anna Paquin captures this emotional confusion
well, especially with her scenes with Wolverine(along with McKellen and
Stewart, Jackman and Paquin are the best pair in the film).

Overall, this was quite a good effort, and while I'm normally leery of
sequels, the same people are back for the second film, so I'm looking
forward to it.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:Entertaining epic, 8 May 2000

I can't say I'm a real big fan of what is known as the "sword and sandal"
genre. Admittedly, I haven't seen too many of these medieval epics, but I
can only think of two I liked(not counting Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN,
which spoofed the genre); BEN-HUR and SPARTACUS. The former, despite an
annoying lead performance by Charlton Heston, had taste and craftsmanship,
the latter, despite a somewhat one-note performance by Kirk Douglas, had
irony and intelligence. The others all seemed melodramatic. But Ridley
Scott's new film shows there's life in this genre yet.

Admittedly, the film does suffer in comparison in one respect; Scott seems
less comfortable with the talking scenes and the backroom politics, as it
were, than, say, Stanley Kubrick was in SPARTACUS. All the scenes with
Charles Laughton, Laurence Olivier, and Peter Ustinov were, in that film,
equally as compelling as the battle scenes. Whereas in Scott's film, while
he's cast some good actors like Joaquim Phoenix, Connie Nielson, and Derek
Jacobi, and they respond with good performances(in particular, Phoenix, an
underrated actor, and not the obvious choice as the bad guy), you can sense
his need to get back to the action.

Fortunately, the action is all well done; while it's clear Scott is trying
to have it both ways(make entertaining spectacle which comments on the need
for entertaining spectacle), he stages it so well we don't tend to worry
about that. Also, he's helped mightily by the casting of Russell Crowe in
the lead role. Crowe couldn't play a false note if he tried, and he brings
a lot to a pretty standard action hero here. As with THE INSIDER, he's
playing another person who takes a stand he didn't think he had to, and he
leads by example, rather than bluster. Overall, while I'm not a big fan of
the genre, this is a fine example of it.

1 out of 9 people found the following review useful:Nothing new, but still good, 25 April 2000

Three years ago, Jonathan Mostow made a neat little thriller called
BREAKDOWN, and while there was nothing in it we hadn't seen before, it was
still good. Now he turns the same trick with this movie. True, it's not a
classic like DAS BOOT was, but if we said that about every movie("well, it's
no..."), we'd have no movies. I was caught up with most of it, and I
enjoyed it. Also, I liked Matthew McConaughey, who proved once again he's a
better actor than given credit for, even when he's not using his trademark
grin and charm. Except for Harvey Keitel and Jack Noseworthy(who was also
in BREAKDOWN), the rest of the cast wasn't distinctive, but they were
good.

Now to answer some of the criticism of this movie I've read: (1) It's not
just that this is a fictional story and not fact, it's that the Enigma is a
McGuffin; just something to get the plot rolling. The real story is the
crew trying to survive on the enemy submarine and McConaughey's character
learning if he has what it takes to be a captain. If we found out the
characters were also supposed to be able to use the Enigma as well, that
would have been a problem, but all they're doing is taking it. (2) If I
remember correctly, and it could be I'm not, the German captain who orders
his gunman to shoot the survivors on lifeboats says those are his orders
from "the Fuehrer." Of course, that's no excuse(given that following orders
was the defense for My Lai), but we weren't meant to think, "Oh, these
German bad guys" because of this scene, especially since they didn't look
particularly happy about it.

On the other hand, I do agree one torpedo blowing up a destroyer was a
little ludicrous. But it does seem to me a lot of comments which nit-pick
films like this are by people who go in not caring if the movie works as a
whole, but who have to be satisfied about every little detail in the movie,
and go through it as if they were studying something under a microscope.
People like that, in my humble opinion, need to get a life.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:Biting yet chilling satire, 20 April 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

WARNING: SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

I first read Ellis' novel a year ago. While much of it was overwritten,
particularly the gore parts, within it was a biting yet chilling satire,
from the concentration of what Patrick wore to what he listened to(the
record reviews, written with the same depth as one might expect a review of
The Who's TOMMY would have, are hysterical), which exposed an entire empty
sub-culture. I'm glad director and co-writer(with Guinevere Turner, who
also plays one of Patrick's victims) Mary Harron found that satire in her
film, while playing down the gore(though the murders still retain their
kick). One could argue some of it is so 80's it's passe, but then again,
given the way a new generation of people are driven to success at any cost,
maybe it's not just the 80's.

Bale does a good job of capturing Patrick, being both funny and terrifying,
often at the same time, and yet showing that the person he most terrifies is
himself. The other actors are all good, particularly Chloe Sevigny as
Patrick's secretary, and makes it believable that she's the one person he
would spare. A couple of points on what people have written; if the other
characters seem shallow, that's partly because that's how Patrick sees them.
Also, I don't think we're supposed to think he imagined it all; I think his
friends just don't believe a serial killer may be in their midst(which is
why Harron keeps Ellis' last line "THIS IS NOT AN EXIT" on the door behind
Patrick).

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:Vaguely unsatisfying, 17 April 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You ever enjoy a movie while it's playing, but then walk out feeling a
little cheated? That was my experience with this movie. Certainly, there
is stuff to like here. Edward Norton is rapidly proving himself to be one
of the best actors of his generation(and to those who are saying, "Oh my
God! He can do comedy?", I'd suggest taking a look at EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE
YOU, or, for darker comedy, THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT or ROUNDERS), and he
continues to demonstrate that here. He's very subtle in conveying how he
gradually falls in love with Anna. He also does a great RAIN MAN riff. And
as director, it's nice to see he doesn't let himself hog all the screen
time, but shares it equally with Stiller and Elfman. Stiller is, as usual,
very funny, and manages to convey his character's conflict in a way that
makes it feel real, rather than just plot. And Elfman continues to prove
there's a lot more to her than Dharma.

BUT(and beware, there are some spoilers coming up):

The movie can't help getting sitcom-ish at times. Some of it, of course, is
personal; I must admit liking verbal gags more than physical, unless the
physical ones are done well, and Norton indulges in too many for himself at
first(the one with Stiller fainting at the circumcision may have been
obvious, but that was nicely done). More importantly, while the movie tries
to respect each religion, it still seems a little cartoonish and
unbelievable at times. I know each of them are trying to make their
congregations come into the 21st century, as it were, and I'm all for that,
but sometimes, I just didn't buy them(I'm a Catholic, and while I went to a
liberal Catholic college, I'm not sure I'd believe New York Catholics would
want the movie SEVEN to be involved in a discussion of the seven deadly
sins). But most of all is how Norton and writer Stuart Blumberg seem to
rely on romantic comedy formula rather than genuine feeling. Yes, I'm
talking about the reconciliation scene; that came straight out of Sitcom
101(also Stiller's "revelation" scene at the traffic light right before
that). At the end, Norton thanks Nora Ephron and confirmed in an interview
I read that he called her up for advice. I wish he hadn't, because scenes
like this are hallmarks of her films and why they're so shallow. And did
they have to sing Barry Manilow at the karaoke center?

This isn't a terrible film, understand, I just found myself vaguely
irritated even while I was laughing at some of it. Overall, I'd recommend
it, but it's not without flaw. Brief aside: I chuckled when Norton was
holding the ANNA BANANA sign at the airport because in high school, I had a
friend named Shanna who, when she ran for student council, had the slogan
"Don't be a Banana/Vote for Shanna," whereupon her friends started calling
her Shanna Banana. We also tried calling her sister "Stacy Banana," but
that didn't take.

70 out of 85 people found the following review useful:Cusack continues winning streak with this film, 5 April 2000

I read the novel when it first came out because the title intrigued me, and
I found it quite good. When I heard John Cusack was adapting it and moving
the action to Chicago(from London in the novel), I was a little worried,
because I worry about changing things during adaptations for arbitrary
reasons, but I needn't have worried; though I have a few quibbles, which
we'll get to later, Cusack and Co. have done a fine job adapting the
novel.

First off, I've read one comment which claims it stereotypes "music geeks."
The type of people Hornby, Cusack, his co-writers(D.V. DeVincentis and Steve
Pink, who also co-wrote GROSSE POINT BLANK, and Scott Rosenberg), and
director Stephen Frears are portraying is a very particular type of "music
geek"; the type who is a snob about music. Almost all of us, I would say,
are aggressive about our likes and dislikes when it comes to music, but not
many, I agree, compare liking Marvin Gaye and Art Garfunkel to "agreeing
with both the Israelis and the Palestinians." And probably not many of us
would be so cut off from feelings that, when hearing about a person's death,
would find no better way of expressing their sorrow than listing their top 5
songs about death. Yet we do like these people as characters because we see
even if they have some snotty attitudes, they do have a genuine love for
their music, and they're in a low-paying job because they love what they do.
And who among us hasn't turned to music when we've felt sad(or happy), like
Rob does, or wished that Bruce Springsteen(and a pox on the person who, in
their comments, implied he was passe. Bruce will NEVER be passe) would talk
to us directly like he talks to us through his music? The novel and the
movie captures all of that.

Another strength, of course, is Cusack's performance. Woody Allen once said
that while American actors were very good at playing virile men of action,
there weren't many who could play more "normal," regular people. Cusack, on
the other hand, has carved out a niche for himself playing regular guys. He
doesn't look like The Boy Next Door, and he's neither stereotypically
sensitive or hip, but comes across as a guy who feels both at ease and yet
still longs for something more. At his best, like in movies such as THE
SURE THING, SAY ANYTHING, THE GRIFTERS, BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, GROSSE POINT
BLANK, and this, he plays people on the cusp of growing up, who are able to
if they want to, but aren't sure if they want to, and yet he's made each of
them different. Rob's condition may be a little more conventional - he's
not sure if he wants to settle down yet - but Cusack, while unafraid to show
his unlikable qualities, makes us like Rob anyway.

The rest of the cast is also quite good. The well-known names only get
short takes(Lisa Bonet, Joan Cusack, Tim Robbins, Lili Taylor, Catherine
Zeta-Jones), but they make the most of their time. I've never seen Iben
Hjejle before(I haven't seen MIFUNE), but she does well as the most grown-up
person in the movie. But the real stars, besides Cusack and the music, are
Jack Black and Todd Louiso as Rob's co-workers. Black especially reminds me
of people I knew.

As I said, I do have some quibbles. There are a couple of incidents in the
book which don't make it to the film which I would have liked to see(the Sid
James Experience, and the lady who wanted to sell Rob a ton of valuable
records for a ridiculously low price). I'm getting tired of movies which
use rain as an expression of sorrow, and this is an example of overuse. And
the character of Laura isn't developed as well in the movie as she was in
the novel. Nevertheless, this is well worth checking out.

6 out of 14 people found the following review useful:Shallow film lifted by good performances, 14 February 2000

A lot of critics compared this to Robert Altman or Alan Rudolph films; I
think Carroll is really aiming for James L. Brooks doing Altman or Rudolph.
A lot of the lines are trying for that snappy Brooks dialogue(like when
Keenan(Ryan Phillipe) tells Joan(Angelina Jolie) "I don't date," to which
she responds, "I've never heard that one before."), and trying to mix comedy
and drama as well as he does. The problem is while Carroll is trying at
least for grand things - talking about love, death, family - he misses in
how to do it. It's clever when it wants to be insightful, and shallow when
it wants to be truthful. And while there are supposed to be surprises at
the end, only one of them really was(which I won't reveal).

On the other hand, this can't easily be dismissed, because all of the
performers are appealing(even though Anthony Edwards, Dennis Quaid, and
Madeline Stowe get stuck with ridiculous subplots, they're always nice to
watch). Even Phillipe, who I normally don't like, comes across pretty well
here. The ones who register the most are Anderson, Connery, Jolie,
Rowlands, and Stewart. Stewart and Anderson feel like a real couple, and
they nicely underplay their dialogue, which makes it play even
better(especially when Stewart first meets Anderson's dog; "Suddenly I feel
inadequate" may seem like a sitcom line(even though it IS a huge dog), but
he makes it seem real). Jolie clearly relates to these types of roles, and
gives all of her lines an extra snap to them. She's also very expressive
here with her face. Connery and Rowlands also feel like a real couple, and
it's nice to see him acting with someone his own age for a change. Some
have questioned whether it's realistic what they would be arguing about, but
since she wants to talk about something else and can't, this is her way of
getting it out, so I had no problem with that.

Overall, it's one of those films saved by good acting, but if Carroll is
aspiring to the level of a James L. Brooks, he needs to go
deeper.

48 out of 74 people found the following review useful:So-so finale, 10 February 2000

WARNING: PLOT POINTS ARE GIVEN AWAY, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE OR
DON'T WANT TO KNOW, PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE READING

As I've said before, I have little use for sequels, which was I was
surprised to find myself going to SCREAM 2, and even more surprised that I
enjoyed it. Like the first one, it was fast, scary, funny, and took some
nice satiric jibes. Even the much debated identity of the killer in the
second one made sense as a satiric swipe at horror movies, so it didn't
bother me. I didn't know if they'd be able to keep it going for a third
movie, especially when hearing Kevin Williamson's involvement was going to
be minimal(he's a producer, and he wrote an outline which eventual writer
Ehren Kruger worked from), but I liked the first two, I was especially
pleased to see Scott Foley(from FELICITY) and Parker Posey in the cast, and
I was intrigued to see what happened. In retrospect, I probably should have
waited for video.

Certainly the opening shows a little promise; instead of the usual celebrity
cameo, we have a spoof of that, with Cotton Weary(Liev Schrieber), who's now
a Geraldo-type talk show host, complaining about having to do a cameo in
STAB 3(the movie within a movie here), so we know it's spoofing itself. The
problem, of course, is we know Cotton's going to get killed, but Craven is
able to draw suspense throughout the scene. We also get the stated purpose
here during the phone call(which, also a bit clever, starts out with a
woman's voice before the familiar tone of Roger L. Jackson as THE voice
kicks in); the killer wants to find Sidney.

Sidney, of course, is living in seclusion, under a new name and barely going
outside the house(which, of course, is under heavy alarm), so at first,
she's almost like an afterthought to the movie. Instead, the center is on
Gail Weathers, the tabloid reporter, now an entertainment reporter, who uses
her reporter skills to play detective when Cotton is killed, and she decides
to assist the police, specifically Detective Kincaid(Patrick Dempsey), in
the case. Then there's Dewey, who's a technical advisor to STAB 3, the
movie, and they of course worry about what's going to happen.

There's all kinds of potential here, and it's directed well, but it isn't
written as well as I think Williamson would have done. There are scares
which still work, and while the Dewey/Gail relationship seems a little old
hat, the two Arquettes obviously like working with each other, and their
familiarity with us helps smooth that over. Also, while Campbell is
disconnected, she's still sympathetic, and while she doesn't have the same
fun with herself as she did in the first one, I understood that. And there
is humor, most of it coming from Posey as the actress playing Gail in STAB
3; few actresses can make contempt funny like she can. There's also the
standard satiric bite(the bodyguard who guarded Julia Roberts and Salman
Rushdie but ends up toast here).

But as I said, it isn't written as well, and the primary weakness is the
killer. In some senses, I guess, having the director(Foley) be the killer
makes sense, because he has the technical expertise to handle things. But
it seems to come out of nowhere, and perhaps to distract us from that,
Kruger gives us the idea of him being a long-lost relative of Sidney's,
which is ridiculous. Perhaps because of that too, Foley goes way over the
top, which is funny at first, but then becomes tiresome. Also, Kruger cribs
not from other horror movies here, but from the first SCREAM(the cloning of
the cell phone being a prime example). And while Williamson's red herrings
were pretty clever, this one seems not thought out. Emily Mortimer's
character(she plays the actress who plays Sidney) is a perfect example;
there are two indications she might be the killer(three, if you count the
woman's voice to Cotton), and yet she's killed off almost as an
afterthought. Finally, as to compensate for all of this, there are a lot
more killings to cover up. Which begs the question; if all he wanted was to
find Sidney(as stated early on several times), why not just take Dewey,
Gail, and Cotton et al hostage? The first two movies mocked the Idiot Plot
Rule; this one mostly personifies it.

It's a shame, because there could have been something made from all this(oh,
almost forgot; Dempsey, who I normally don't like, is surprisingly good, and
also unrecognizable here). But this certainly doesn't break any rules.
Even the Jamie Kennedy cameo seems obligatory rather than fresh. This
suggest they should have stopped at the second one.